Ex-University Professor Dr. Aaron Kheriaty Says All You Need to Hear About COVID Conflict of Interest & Coercive Health Regulations.

According to Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, a former professor of psychiatry and the director of the Medical Ethics Program at the University of California, once vaccine mandates are implemented in society and people become familiar with showing their COVID-19 vaccine certificate to participate in social life, authorities can use this infrastructure for other coercive policies.

Vaccine mandates nullify the right to informed consent when it comes to medical intervention by preventing patients or parents of children from making their own decisions, according to Kheriaty, who was recently fired from the University of California, Irvine, for opposing the university’s COVID-19 vaccine policy.

Many people may consider showing proof of vaccination in order to travel, go to a restaurant, a sports arena, buy food, or do other things to be a minor inconvenience because the COVID-19 vaccine makes some people feel safer, especially those who are older or have chronic conditions, according to Kheriaty of EpochTV’s “Crossroads” program.

“once that infrastructure is in place, and once people have gotten used to doing that, that has become sort of normal. That infrastructure can very easily be used for all kinds of other purposes, ” the ethicist added, describing the finding as “a very ominous development.”

There are no sterilizing vaccinations for COVID-19, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, because these vaccines, unlike natural immunity, do not limit infection and transmission. Kheriaty carried on.

“Vaccinated people can still become infected and have the potential to spread the virus to others,” according to the CDC, “although at much lower rates than unvaccinated people.”

“That’s why that traditional ethic of free and informed consent is so important to maintain with these interventions,” said Kheriaty.

He also mentioned “the problem of people getting used to things under the guise of a public health emergency or in a situation in which they’ve been subjected to fear-inducing propaganda for two years, [and] accepting things that they never would have accepted in ordinary circumstances.”

“I’m very concerned about the use of ordinary civil liberties as carrots and sticks to make people behave the way the public health authorities want you to behave,” Kheriaty continued.

“Rolling this out with a vaccine that lots and lots of people wanted makes it seem more benign and innocuous than it actually is. … That concentrates a lot of power in the hands, not just of government officials, but also of people with economic interests that may want to nudge us this direction, or that direction.”

According to the former professor, those in power can utilize this infrastructure to switch off a person’s capacity to buy fuel because their carbon footprint is too great.

According to Kheriaty, new advanced technology, particularly smartphone technology, which allows people to track where they are and whether they are in close proximity to other people, has been “wedded to public health and medical goals in novel ways” that were not seen 10 to 15 years ago.

Over the last decade, countries have engaged in pandemic planning scenarios that included not only doctors and epidemiologists trying to figure out the best response to influenza, bird flu, and other epidemics, but also security agencies like the CIA and other elements of national security.

“Under the guise of a public health emergency, there has been an enormous shift of power during the pandemic, and actually an enormous upward shift of wealth during the pandemic that I find really concerning.”

The lack of a definition of what constitutes a public health emergency is particularly concerning to the medical ethicist. For the past two years, the federal government or state governments have extended the state of emergency every 90 days, but the criteria for determining what constitutes a health emergency, such as the number of cases, hospitalizations, percentage of the population infected, or other metrics, have never been outlined, he explained.

“This means we have no way of knowing when the emergency is over. Ordinary kind of protections and ordinary constitutional limits have been set aside for two years, and we don’t know, and we have no metric of knowing when that is going to stop.”

“That strikes me as highly problematic just from a social and political perspective because it means that these people who have been given enormous powers. I mean, never before in my lifetime have governors exercised so much power over very personal and intimate aspects of our lives.” and “Ordinary citizens, ordinary people around the world, I think, need to start demanding from their leaders clear definitions, clear limits as to who can declare this state of emergency, how long can it go on.” he added.

Scientific research is frequently funded by the federal government, according to Kheriaty, who added that agencies reporting to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), such as the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “have become very closely aligned over the years, with the interests of pharmaceutical companies in very concrete and tangible ways.”

The NIH, for example, “designed and did the clinical trials for the Moderna vaccine and they actually co-own the patent on the Moderna vaccine,” according to the ethicist.

Because the NIH has co-ownership of those patents, they profit when the vaccine is sold, Kheriaty said, adding that “Taxpayer dollars were used as grants to fund scientific studies and the development of the vaccine.”

he added “To me it would be a clear conflict of interest”.

The FDA approves the vaccine’s use, while the CDC gives recommendations on how to administer it, according to Kheriaty. “These days, those suggestions are usually converted into vaccine mandates.”

The Epoch Times reached out to the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and Moderna for comment.

“The FDA does not require vaccines,” an FDA press officer wrote in an email to The Epoch Times. “Whether a state, local government, or employer, for example, may require or mandate COVID-19 vaccination is a matter of state or other applicable law.”

“The other key issue is that the drug companies are totally indemnified against any liability for vaccines,” Kheriaty explained.

As a result, pharmaceuticals are subjected to more stringent safety testing than vaccines, he explained, because pharmaceutical companies are solely liable for any harm caused by their products.

“Several years ago, pharma companies persuaded the federal government that vaccinations weren’t profitable enough due to the expenditures of research and development being too great if they were to be held accountable for injuries.”

Direct advertising of drugs to customers is another method pharmaceutical corporations can have undue influence over public opinion, according to Kheriaty.

Because it was previously illegal under federal law, drug corporations could only promote their medicines to doctors, he noted. However, in the late 1990s, the law was altered to allow pharmaceutical corporations to advertise their products directly to patients, giving them power over many news organizations and television networks, he added.

“In order for economic interests not to overtake public health interests, we probably need some of the old protections in place that had been whittled away in the last couple of decades. And we need a stricter separation between the agencies that are tasked with regulating pharmaceutical companies and their products, and the companies themselves,” Kheriaty stated.

He also recommended individuals to seek out a variety of information sources, assess them carefully, and consider their authenticity.

“While it’s true that you may not be a virologist, or you may not be an epidemiologist, you’re a rational human being who can recognize a flat out contradiction, who can recognize when something is just completely illogical and doesn’t add up. … So a healthy suspicion of an expert who is unwilling to explain things, cite evidence, answer questions, I think is healthy for ordinary people these days.” and “I think everyone needs to really kind of examine their own convictions and ask themselves, ‘Okay, where is my line in the sand?’”

It’s safe to say that if you’re not at least a skeptic of the authenticity of the claims of the CDC, NIH, media, and our current administration, you’re most likely too caught up in your own life to take a second look at this information. With that being said, the mechanisms by which people are being programmed to forget everything we knew about science are as advanced as MRNA technology itself. Dr. Robert Malone recently sat down for a podcast on the Joe Rogan Show in which he cited the CDC and its constituents many examples of blatant disregard for rule of law. Toward the end of his interview, Malone suggested that people are in the midst of what he called “mass formation psychosis,” drawing parallels to the mentality that developed among the German population in the 1920s and 1930s.